Thursday, April 19, 2018

Anticipating Attempts To Excommunicate Faithful Catholics - And Combating Them

As said in the previous post, Cardinal Burke gave an address at a conference in Rome last week.  The conference was called, "Catholic Church: Where Are You Going?"  He broached the consequences of any needed disobedience to Pope Francis.  He is speaking primarily of the direction that Amoralis Lamentia explicitly states in its infamous chapter 8 footnote regarding the administration of Holy Communion to adulterers.

The question of excommunication was raised.  The Cardinal said we must be ready to suffer such consequences with Christian patience.

My question is, if such an attempt at excommunication was made, would that excommunication be valid?  Perhaps that "consequence" would not even exist in fact.  Excommunication just can't be done willy-nilly, at the drop of a hat.  Specific conditions must be met for a valid excommunication, along with specific protocol to be followed.

The Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia has a treatise on excommunication.  One sections says, and I quote, "Catholics on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred."  Right there we see that excommunication can only occur as a consequence of a "grievously offensive act".  What would be these acts that would cause excommunication?  They'd have to be objectively sinful, correct?  Ruffling the feathers of a church leader and/or pricking his conscience would not constitute an "offensive act"!

Moving on down that article, we read, "An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the  inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form."  Therefore, I ask that if an attempt at excommunication is made in the absence of a mortal sin, does that "excommunication" have any consequence?

I for one think not.  In the face of these considerations, I cannot see how one so "excommunicated" could, in good conscience, submit to that.  In so doing, he/she would be cooperating with the sin of an abuse of ecclesial authority.  He/she would actually be validating an act of abuse and dishonesty.

The cardinal is right to broach these matters.  Given the trajectory of this papacy, especially the manners in which traditional orders and faithful prelates have been thrown under the bus (including Cardinal Burke himself), draconian attempts at excommunication are clearly within the realm of real possibilities.  I can see where some might think the proper response to that kind of abuse might be to acquiesce to it and comply with the "excommunication".  I do not believe it is inherently virtuous to roll over and play dead like that.  Evil must be resisted.  If no excommunication really exists in fact, we cannot pretend that it does.  Such lies must be disobeyed, just like the lie of admissibility of adulterers to Holy Communion.

Bishops In Bed With Progressives

For over a hundred years, the Church has always supported the rights of workers to form unions so that they could bargain more effectively with their employers.  Such support was enshrined by Pope Leo XIII in Rerun Novarum.  However, today's bishops seem to be somewhat compromised when it comes to the rights of workers not to join a union if that is their preference.  They have demonstrated their left-wing proclivities once again with a case that is now before the Supreme Court, Janus vs American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.  Mark Janus, an Illinois employee brought suit so that he wouldn't have to cough up the mandatory union dues even though he declined to join.  He rightly states that such compulsion to pay union dues is a violation of his rights.

Demonstrating their slavish devotion to unions, the USCCB filed an amicus on behalf of AFSCME.  To his immense credit, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield publicly disavowed the USCCB's stunt, correctly stating that no such consensus exists among Catholics regarding a matter on which reasonable people can disagree.  I thank him for not joining the USCCB's false pretense that compulsory union membership is enjoined by the Magisterium.  I suspect the USCCB benefits a bit from union largess as well as that of the feds.  How else do we explain the toadying to John Sweeney, former boss of both SEIU and AFL-CIO over the years?

Let's take a look at the latest stunt by Cardinal Cupich of Chicago.  A parish within his archdiocese, St. John Cantius, has conducted Mass in the Extraordinary Form and fostered traditional sacred music.  Some rather cheap allegations arose concerning the pastor, Father C. Frank Phillips.  With no regard to due process, Cupich slapped on him very draconian measures, including the suspension of his priestly faculties.  Meanwhile, Father Michael Pfleger is still pastor of St. Sabina's.  Remember him?  Remember how he threatened to "snuff" the owner of a local gun shop (because he hates violence so much!)?  How does Pfleger remain while Phillips gets thrown under the bus?  The answer is really quite simple; Pfleger and Cupich have very similar outlooks.  Father Phillips on the other hand embraces fidelity to the Magisterium.  So as he squashed the priests who participated in 40 Days for Life while he was bishop of Spokane, so too is he punishing Fr Phillips for his love of Tradition.

We will now move onto another dissident prelate who, like Cupich, was made a Cardinal.  I refer you to Cardinal Joseph Tobin (not to be confused with the relatively decent Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island).  In direct contradiction to a statement made by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, he voiced his opinion that the Church should not attempt to make herself more pure.  Well, at least he's honest about that.  At a meeting of close confidantes of the pope's at Villanova last week, the cardinal opined that the "church is moving on the question of same-sex couples".  Moving where, pray tell?  In her two-thousand years of existence, she has always held to the teachings of Jesus Christ on the matter (and by the way - it's NOT "complex").  The only way she could "move" would be away from the truth.  That is happening only in the minds of dissidents, progressives and outright heretics.  Those last few words describe the attendees at that gabfest.

One last word about Cardinal Tobin.  Three years ago, Tobin was an archbishop in Indiana.  Within his diocese, a Knights of Columbus council rented their hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their #mowwidge.  I had suggested that all call the chancery and ask Tobin to have the thing cancelled.  At the time I was unaware of Tobin's true colors.  Needless to say, Tobin did nothing.  At first I chalked his inaction to mere apathy.  Now I consider the very real possibility that the KofC council caved to the lesbians under his order.

Above I mentioned Bishop Thomas Paprocki as a bishop who is upholding the truth.  Another is Cardinal Burke.  He too was at a conference, one quite different in tenor than the heretical snake-pit that Cardinal Tobin attended.  What he said deserves its own post and that post will follow this.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Two Little Boys

Yesterday the pope engaged in an outdoors address of a parish in Rome.  A little boy named Emanuele addressed a question to Pope Francis regarding his atheist father who just died.  In a nutshell the pope dismissed the necessity for baptism and belief in Jesus Christ to attain salvation.  I needn't rehash what other bloggers have already adroitly done.  Suffice it to say that I agree with Louie Verrechio in saying that much of this event was staged.  The little boy may well have been concerned about his father, but the language he used was rather advanced for a six-year-old.  Gloria TV states that while God does not abandon the sinner, it's the sinner who abandons God.

Now on to the other little boy.

His name is Alfie Evans.  He is a sick little boy in England, in the clutches of the so-called "national health service".  The latter has been chomping at the bit to murder Alfie by disconnecting his life support over the objections of his parents.  The pope has finally weighed in on the matter - sort of!  He yapped and yammered about "delicate situations, very painful and complex" and "joint efforts of families, doctors.."  He absolutely refused to utter clear teaching from the Church.  The teaching is clear - nothing "complex" about it.  Have you ever noticed that when people don't want to admit to clear standards of right versus wrong in a given situation, they claim it's "complex"?  They do so only to avoid being held accountable for conformity and obedience to truth.  We also are treated to nonsense about "joint efforts".  But who has the authority over a child?  Clearly it's the parents - yet the pope did not state that.  Does he not believe that?

Both Emanuele and Alfie have suffered immense disservice from this pope.  In Emanuele's case he was denied the truth regarding heaven and the necessity for believing.  In Alfie's case he was denied a voice needed to perhaps save his life.

Friday, April 13, 2018

Remnant On Young People's Synod

While Michael Matt states that Pope Francis et al are trying to take their lead from these young people, I don't think that's the case.  I think the next Amoralis Lamentia is already written.  They are simply going to use these poor kids as props that they can use to trot out their latest heretical poison.

The Progressive Demolition Of Sacred Tradition Carries On

Today's Vortex discusses the "fruits" of Vatican II, explaining why it was largely an abysmal failure, noble intentions of council fathers notwithstanding.

Notice what Voris says about the real problems that did exist before Vatican II: problems that some prelates did try to address before the Masons and progressives hijacked the council.  Those problems (particularly the progressive infiltration of the seminaries) are probably why the faith of so many Catholics collapsed liked a house of cards when the modernist mutations of Mass, education, etc were trotted out.

Vatican II was simply one phase of the planned demolition of Sacred Tradition in the lives of so many.  This papacy is simply one of the current phases of the same planned wreckage.  Below is the World Over, where the latest plop is discussed.  Hmm.. We need a name for it.  I've seen Gaudete Insulte.  We might also do Gaudy Excoriate.  But I digress.

Notice what they say about the dangers posed by this plethora of "synods".  I've stated my theory before and will restate it.  I believe these synods are nothing more than elaborate smoke screens, a way to advance heretical ideas under the guise of "collegiality", "accompaniment", you name it.  They are meant to produce writings as nefarious as is Amoris Laetitia.  In fact, I believe these encyclicals are already written and that their promulgation is simply awaiting the dog-and-pony show of their "synod" fronts.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Roberto De Mattei's Remarks Lend Credence To Calls For An Imperfect Synod

At the 2018 Catholic Family News conference last week, Church historian Roberto De Mattei called upon Catholics to resist the evil of papolatry  He called upon lay and clergy alike to fight the errors emanating from wayward pastors, calling the pastors out by name.   He pointed out that while cardinals cannot depose a pope, they can declare that a pope, by virtue of heresy, has lost his office.

I have seen calls on various sites for an imperfect synod to do just that.  With each insult to the Teachings of Jesus Christ that oozes forth from the Vatican, the case for such a synod grows stronger.  My main concern with that is that I don't believe there are enough cardinals with the orthodoxy and/or backbone to undertake such a task.

Monday, April 9, 2018

Gaudete Et Exsultate - SJW Screed

In my post this past Saturday regarding Catholic Charities, I pointed out that they are colluding with Soros-funded groups to facilitate the violation of our national borders.  Church Militant went into more detail about the machinations of such a network.

After the news came regarding a caravan of Central Americans who planned to go through Mexico and straight through our southern border, President Trump announced that he was going to deploy National Guardsmen to buttress the efforts of the ICE to guard the US from this de facto invasion.  That move (in keeping with his duties as stipulated in the Constitution) threw the left-wing bishops of both the US and Mexico in a tizzy; they released this letter.

Now it seems that the pope has lent his own left-wing slant to the immigration situation (both in the US and in face of the Muslim invasion of Europe), under the guise of an apostolic exhortation.  This thing is called Gaudete Et Exsultate.  That link is to the English translation on the Vatican site.  I refer you specifically to paragraphs 101-103.  Please notice that the pope mentions the crime of baby-murder once, while he devotes two whole paragraphs to migration.  He has his priorities exactly ass-backwards as Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, succinctly states.  Gaudete stands in direct contradiction to the two previous pontiffs; thus no one can claim it has magisterial weight.

Mahound's Paradise has a selection of snippets from it.  I would suggest, however, that you read the thing for yourselves.

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Some Wake Up, Some Shut Their Eyes And Brains

Last year, among other criminal activities uncovered by wikileaks, it was discovered that several progressive leaders sought (and ultimately obtained) the removal of Pope Benedict XVI from the papacy.  Those leaders - actually, perpetrators is the more accurate term - are George Soros, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  A group of Catholic leaders - in an open letter to President Trump - asked him for a formal investigation into the alleged tampering of federal officials in the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is no surprise.  It merely confirms what many faithful Catholics instinctively sensed all along: that Pope Benedict XVI was driven out so that Pope Francis, obviously sympathetic to progressive causes and not so much for Sacred Tradition, could be installed to do the bidding of the Soros cabal.

Some faithful Catholics seemed incapable of conceiving that: 1) the Holy Spirit may not have positively selected Cardinal Bergoglio to assume the papacy and/or 2) his doings are not automatically of divine inspiration.  Over the years, more and more of these folks have acknowledged the evidence that constantly slaps us all in our faces.  One such individual is Father Dwight Longenecker.  In his blog post entitled "Pope Francis Told Me", he indicates how the pope is deliberately insinuating his mischief into the minds of unwary Catholics.  He insinuates a falsehood and never quite denies it.  We saw it in the "sinners don't go to hell" fiasco.  Father points out that Jesuits have been doing that all along - including Father James Martin.  The most spectacular example was the "adulterers can receive Holy Communion" heresy embedded in Amoralis Lamentia.  We can bet our bottom dollars there will be another sly whopper in the encyclical that will be released after this "youth synod".  Notice I said "released" for I strongly suspect it is already largely written; but I digress!

Another way of slyly insinuating heretical poison is to look the other way while key personnel are openly dissenting from Tradition and/or living grossly immoral lives.  Cardinal Schonborn, a close advisor to Pope Francis, said in a recent interview that ordination of women as deacons, priests and bishops can be decided "by a council".   No they can't.  Pope John Paul II definitively stated in Ordinato Sacerdotalis that the question was not up for debate and that it was settled teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can only be conferred on men.  Schonborn stands in direct disobedience to Sacred Tradition.

At about the same time, Archbishop Paglia claimed that it's "dangerous" to speak of the family as a "domestic church" even though that language is found in the Catechism and the Vatican II documents.  He is the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life - or the parody of the former Academy.  Paglia dismissed most of its faithful members and has now rendered it an abysmal joke.  Moreover, he's the one who not only plastered homoerotic pornographic "art" in his cathedral, but had himself painted into the thing as clinging to another scantily clad man.  These last two scandals happened a while ago, and still Paglia retains his influential role in the Vatican.  Personnel is policy.

So yes, these two examples illustrate what Father Longenecker wrote a few days ago.  Sadly, though, others still persist on denying the evidence before their faces, lambasting those of us who acknowledge the truth as "bashing the pope".  I see this most often on facebook and their behavior is downright weird.  When we post news of some latest outrage perpetrated by the Vatican with the pope's permission, they go on a tirade about how "hateful" we are.  Then they post on their own walls, again and again, how they will "follow the pope".  One could ask, "follow him where".  Their very repetition makes me believe that they are simply trying to drown out the truth that they find increasingly difficult to deny.  Let's keep them in prayer.

DC Catholic Charities' Mysterious Gala

Today, at Mass in a local parish, I discovered that the DC Catholic Charities is having its annual fundraising gala this evening.  Maybe I missed it but I recall no mention of it in the Catholic Standard.  It is here on their website, but immediately I noticed something very odd about it.  Nowhere do I see mention of a keynote speaker.  In the past, they have had some extremely questionable honorees.  In 2002, for instance, they honored John Sweeney, then president of the pro-abortion AFL-CIO.  He had been president for several years and still the AFL-CIO site directly linked to NOW's site.  So given their propensity to rub elbows with all sorts of seedy characters AND their rather coy silence regarding tonight's program, we will not be surprised if DC Catholic Charities indeed grovels at the feet of some pro-abort and/or dissident celebrity.

By the way, I went to their facebook page to see if there were additional details about this evening's shin-dig.  I didn't see any, but I saw where they promoted the Soros-funded "March for Our Lives".  However, I don't see one peep regarding the Sex-Ed-Sit-Out that is scheduled for April 23rd.  If parents are going to let their kids out of school, the reason might as well be to prevent progressive poison from polluting their brains and corrupting their morals.  In fact, I don't see mention of it on the USCCB site or any diocesan websites; if I've overlooked one, please advise.

If anyone has any info on this evening's event, please advise via the comments section.  In the meantime, please boycott the in-pew collections of all these so-called "Catholic charitable outreaches".

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Frankly, Something Stinks About The Death Of LOC Anthony Freeman

The Catholic blogosphere has been alight with the death of Brother Anthony Freeman, a 3rd-year seminarian with the Legionaires of Christ.  He had a large social media presence as he sought to use that medium for evangelism.  He was the cross-bearer at Pope Francis' Easter Mass at the Vatican just one day before he was found dead by fellow seminarians.  He was only 29 years old.

The blogosphere is alight with laments, prayers and remembrances.  What I fail to see is questions about his death - which is quite frankly suspicious in nature.
  • He was a member of an order that has become quite jaded owing to the horrendous scandals of its founder, Fr. Maciel.
  • He had quite a presence in the social media world.  Was he privy to sensitive information as a result?
  • He played a prominent role in the Easter Mass. Did others see in him a target whose death might be seen as a signal of sorts?
  • Was the noising abroad of his death intended to be a warning to others?
  • People who are 29 years old don't routinely drop dead.  There has to be a reason for his death.  And no, the platitude "it must be God's will" simply won't suffice.
The Crud site reports that an autopsy is underway.  That is the first time I heard of a comprehensive examination of this young man's death.  Already some are trying to chalk his death to "natural causes".  At 29???  Maybe that's the case, but the specific nature of these "natural causes" needs to be determined.  In addition to praying for the repose of Brother Freeman's soul, let us pray that the investigation of his death be authentic as opposed to coverup-damage-control so as to reveal the whole truth.